Claim · 2014 · publication · Stated in source · Supported

Pinker's Edge response of 2014 argues that there are reasons not to worry about killer robots and machines running amok: disaster scenarios are cheap to play out in the imagination, where no probabilities apply, and AI dystopias project a dominance psychology onto intelligence.

One recorded claim. The claim panel gives its qualification, the source passages with their place in each source, and how it was checked.

What it connects

Response to Jaron Lanier, "The Myth of AI" (Edge Reality Club) → contests → Risk of extinction or comparable catastrophe

Where it appears

Arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI →

Claim and evidence

Response to Jaron Lanier, "The Myth of AI" (Edge Reality Club)contests ↓Risk of extinction or comparable catastrophe

Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editorStated in sourceSupported

Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source

Date: 2014 · publication Records dated 2014 →
Role: Earliest located, Contesting
Register (kind of text): Nonfiction
Engagement: Engages a premise. Disputes that AI catastrophe scenarios warrant concern, by arguing that they are imagined without probabilities and assume a will to dominate that intelligence does not entail.

Scope and limitsThe response speaks of machines running amok and of disaster scenarios, not of extinction in those words. Recorded after a machine audit of the research pack, which named it as earlier than Hawkins (2015); the Edge responses carry no dates of their own. Paraphrase because Pinker's 526-word response already has 48 quoted words.

The evidence 01

primary sourceSupports the claim

Response by Steven Pinker, in "The Myth of AI" (Reality Club discussion)

Edge.org, conversation page "The Myth of AI" (Jaron Lanier, dated 14 November 2014), Reality Club discussion · 2014

Archived copy, captured 2014-11-16: Response by Steven Pinker, in "The Myth of AI" (Reality Club discussion)

Cite the original source

Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.

Paraphrase

Pinker writes that besides the distance to human-level AI there are other reasons not to worry about killer robots and machines running amok: disaster scenarios are cheap to play out in a probability-free imagination and always find an audience, and AI dystopias project a parochial alpha-male psychology onto the concept of intelligence.

Location in source Reality Club response by Steven Pinker, paras. 1–2 and 4

How it was read Retrieved directly from the publisher

Machine-checked · 2026-10-31

Source details and check notes

Authors: Steven Pinker
Version: Retrieved for the candidate pack on 2026-10-29 (SHA-256 6ea0800c969ae54c4fad372468aa5a9a557b4d25a081bee9b26d51048fd8d159). current Edge.org conversation page retrieved 2026-10-29 (the page states that the site is hosted by the Internet Archive); responses carry no individual dates. The cross-family check retrieved it again on 2026-10-31; the bytes differ, and the check compared the quoted passages. The cross-family check of 2026-10-31 found Pinker's passage on evolved drives in the capture of the conversation page of 16 November 2014; a capture attests only what the archive held on that date.
Canonical address: Open the canonical source ↗
Accessed: 2026-10-29
Language: English (en)
Archive copy: Open archived copy, captured 2014-11-16: Response by Steven Pinker, in "The Myth of AI" (Reality Club discussion). An archive copy shows only what the archive retrieved on 2014-11-16. It does not prove what the page said earlier, and it can differ from the copy checked on 2026-10-29.
Attribution: Steven Pinker, “Response by Steven Pinker, in "The Myth of AI" (Reality Club discussion)”, 2014.
Reuse: No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata, editorial paraphrases and short attributed quotations (at most 50 words each). Recheck terms before wider redistribution.
Check notes: Candidate pack passage, arguments about catastrophic risk from advanced AI (research/risk-debate). The paraphrase is Selekoa’s, written from the text retrieved for the candidate pack; it is not a quotation and was not machine-matched. No human editorial review.

Status and meaning

Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor. An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.

Relation. A passage of the document disputes the proposition or a premise it depends on. The record documents the text’s position, not who is right.

Date. Date of posting.

Record ID rd-r07-pinker-2014-edge-myth-of-ai